Avatar (what is it?)

Dear all,

It was mentioned in another post that in the BK view, Dada Lekhraj 'is certainly not regarded as an avatar'. Can anyone please tell me what is the BK / PBK view of what 'avatar' means and why is it wrong to apply this to Dada Lekhraj?

Thanx

Omshanti. The Bhargava 's standard illustrated dictionary, Hindi-English compiled by Prof.R.C.Pathak gives the following English meanings of the word 'avataar':

"Descent, a crossing over, incarnation, exhibition into human form"

I think 'incarnation' is the most popular term in English used for the translation of 'avatar'. But the last meaning given in the above dictionary, i.e. 'exhibition into human form' seems to be more apt.

In Hinduism, it is believed that Vishnu incarnated on Earth in various forms at different points of time/in different Ages. The most popular avatars of Vishnu include Ram and Krishna. In these cases Vishnu took birth through mothers' womb. But in case of other avatars in animal or other forms he is believed to have just appeared in that form suddenly. For example the Vishnu's incarnation as a fish (matsyaavataar) or half man-half lion (narsimhaavataar).

When compared to such incarnations (either by taking birth or sudden appearances) of Vishnu, the incarnation of Shiv as believed by BKs/PBKs is not an incarnation as such because Shiv neither took birth nor appeared suddenly as God. Since it is believed by the BKs and PBKs that the Supreme Soul enters in Dada Lekhraj and Baba Virendra Dev Dixit respectively and did not take birth as these two personalities, the revelation of Shiv through these personalities cannot be termed incarnation/avatar from a classical Hindu point of view. That is why BKs/PBKs use the term 'divine incarnation' (divya avataran), 'entry into another being' (parkaya pravesh), etc. to describe the incarnation of Shiv.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Since it is believed by the BKs and PBKs that the Supreme Soul enters in Dada Lekhraj and Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit respectively and did not take birth as these two personalities, the revelation of Shiv through these personalities cannot be termed incarnation/avatar from a classical Hindu point of view. That is why BKs/PBKs use the term 'divine incarnation' (divya avataran) ... to describe the incarnation of Shiv.

Dear Arjun,

Om Shanti. Do you mean that the BK / PBK does use the term 'avatar' for the Chariot but that it has a different meaning to the classical Vaisnav idea? Does Shiv himself use the term 'divya avataran' in the Murli? Also does the BP / PBK object to the idea of God taking birth through a human womb because this is considered demeaning / unbecoming for the Almighty God?

Do you mean that the BK / PBK does use the term 'avatar' for the Chariot but that it has a different meaning to the classical Vaisnav idea?

Yes, basically they differentiate Shiv's incarnation in BB/Baba Virendra Dev Dixit from the incarnation of Vishnu as Ram/Krishna in terms of the mode of incarnation. In case of former it is entry of the Supreme Soul in a grown up body to narrate knowledge whereas in case of the latter it is birth through a mother's womb followed by death in the end. In case of former it is just entry and exit from the human body whenever He wishes.

Does Shiv himself use the term 'divya avataran' in the Murli?

I don't think I have seen this term in the Sakar Murlis (spoken by ShivBaba through Brahma Baba) but I remember reading this term in one of the Avyakt Vanis. I think if one could search the Avyakt Vanis narrated from 1969 to this date on the occasion of Shivjayanti every year, one may find this term.

Also does the BP / PBK object to the idea of God taking birth through a human womb because this is considered demeaning / unbecoming for the Almighty God?

Yes. As said in reply to the first question above, Ram and Krishna took birth and also died whereas the three primary forms of God 'Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar' believed by the Hindus do not take birth or die. Even in Gita, God is described as amar, avinashi (immortal, imperishable). So, by that definition, God taking birth through a human womb is definitely considered demeaning/unbecoming of the immortal God.

So with the Bhagavad Gita, is Krishna a normal man but then Shiv enters his body on the battlefield to speak?

So with the Bhagavad Gita, is Krishna a normal man but then Shiv enters his body on the battlefield to speak?

As per Hindu belief Shiv (or Shankar) and Vishnu are different. Krishna was the incarnation of Vishnu right from the birth and was believed to have displayed super natural powers right from his birth. Shiv did not enter in him to narrate Gita. Krishna himself narrated Gita.

If I am not wrong, it is believed that Hanuman was the incarnation of Shiv (or Shankar).

As per Hindu belief Shiv (or Shankar) and Vishnu are different. Krishna was the incarnation of Vishnu right from the birth ... Shiv did not enter in him to narrate Gita. Krishna himself narrated Gita.

So BK / PBK does believe in the classical Hindu idea of avatar for Vishnu but not for Shiv? For the Vaisnav, Vishnu is the supreme God, so what is Vishnu for the BK / PBK?

So BK / PBK does believe in the classical Hindu idea of avatar for Vishnu but not for Shiv? For the Vaisnav, Vishnu is the supreme God, so what is Vishnu for the BK / PBK?

No. BKs/PBKs do not believe in the classical ideas of incarnations of Vishnu to be true. They think that these are just mythological stories written in the Copper Age (Dwapar yug) in the world cycle of 5000 years.

For BKs/PBKs the basic meaning of Vishnu is the combined form of Lakshmi and Narayan. BKs believe that Dada Lekhraj would become Narayan and Om Radhe would become Sarawati. PBKs believe Baba Virendra Dev Dixit would get revealed as the Confluence-Aged Narayan while BK Vedanti would get revealed as the Confluence-Aged Lakshmi [ShivBaba (through Veerendra Dev Dixit) does not literally mention the name of BK Vedanti in the clarification Murlis; she is referred to as the soul of Vaishnavi/Confluence-Aged Lakshmi]

For PBKs, there is an advanced meaning of Vishnu too. They believe that the four arms of Vishnu and the head represent five souls which play the most important roles in the BK&PBK Yagya. These are:

Head: The soul of Confluence-Aged Ram (or Baba Virendra Dev Dixit).
Lotus: The soul of Jagdamba (or Kamla Devi)
Conch: The soul of Vaishnavi (or BK Vedanti)
Mace: The soul of Brahma Baba (or Dada Lekhraj)
Discus/wheel: The soul of Saraswati (or Om Radhe)

For BKs/PBKs the basic meaning of Vishnu is the combined form of Lakshmi and Narayan. BKs believe that Dada Lekhraj would become Narayan and Om Radhe would become Sarawati. PBKs believe Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit would get revealed as the Confluence-Aged Narayan while BK Vedanti would get revealed as the Confluence-Aged Lakshmi

Sorry for being slow, do you mean that BKs believe that the Gita was spoken by Dada Lekhraj (and Om Radhe) while PBKs believe the Gita was spoken by Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit?

do you mean that BK's believe that the Gita was spoken by Dada Lekhraj (and Om Radhe) while PBK's believe the Gita was spoken by Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit?

BKs believe that the true Gita (i.e. the Murlis) was narrated by incorporeal God Shiv through Brahma Baba from the late 1940s till 1969. Om Radhe was not involved in the narration of Murlis.

PBKs believe that the true Gita (i.e. the advanced knowledge including the clarification of Murlis, Avyakt Vanis and trance messages published by the BKs) is being narrated by incorporeal God Shiv through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit from 1976.

OK sorry for confusion - I am asking about the Bhagavad Gita featuring Arjun, Krishna and the battlefield. Do BKs / PBKs believe that God spoke to Arjun on the battlefield, and if so who is the God that spoke?

I am asking about the Bhagavad Gita featuring Arjun, Krishna and the battlefield. Do BK's / PBK's believe that God spoke to Arjun on the battlefield, and if so who is the God that spoke?

As I have already said that the BKs/PBKs believe it to be just a scripture (in which Krishna narrated Gita to Arjun) written in the Copper Age in memory of the events that have taken place in the Confluence Age. Krishna is God for Hindus but for BKs/PBKs he is just another human soul (but a great actor in this drama who becomes a medium of God in the Confluence Age). BKs/PBKs believe that the essence of The Knowledge taught by ShivBaba in the Confluence Age is contained in the Gita written by a human soul in the Copper Age. In fact, it is one of the BK/PBK souls that writes the scripture when it reaches the Copper Age after taking 21 births in the Golden Age/Silver Age.

Bhaagwat (story of Krishna) and Ramayana (story of Ram) were originally written in Sanskrit in the Copper Age, but Sanskrit was a language of the elite class among the Hindus. So, when they were re-written in people's language (early form of Hindi) by two great poets Surdas and Tulsidas in the form of Soorsaagar/Sursaravali and Ramcharitmanas respectively they became accessible to the common men. It is told by ShivBaba (through Veerendra Dev Dixit) that Surdas and Tulsidas were actually souls of Golden Aged Krishna and the Confluence-Aged Ram who wrote their own stories in the Iron Age (Kaliyuga).

As I have already said that the BKs/PBKs believe it to be just a scripture (in which Krishna narrated Gita to Arjun) written in the Copper Age in memory of the events that have taken place in the Confluence Age. Krishna is God for Hindus but for BKs/PBKs he is just another human soul (but a great actor in this drama who becomes a medium of God in the Confluence Age).

OK so the BK / PBK Krishna is nothing to do with the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita, and in the BK / PBK view, Krishna's words in the Bhagavad Gita are invented by the human author.

So anyway what is the meaning of this spoken by Dada Lekhraj in the 1943 book

"Yada Yada, that is to say after every Kalpa at such a time of the end of Kali-Yuga, when the Divine Knowledge of 'Aham Brahm Asmi' or 'Aham Chaturbhuj' vanishes from the entire World and when numerous irreligious prevail everywhere causing extreme Decay of Righteousness, then I, that Viceless, Fully Accomplished Abider of BRAHM-PURI or Vaikunth, Dwarkanath Kalgidhar SREE Krishna of Sat-Yuga, complete with Sixteen Divine Attributes (through whom this Divine Knowledge actually circulates among the Suryavanshi Sovereigns in the beginning of the Kalpa), having taken birth in Bharat with a different name in a human form, spontaneously regain faith in 'Aham Brahm Asmi', organise the most Supreme Yagya of Imperishable Divine Wisdom and create Divine Ones (Brahmins and Kshetriyas) through My Oral Orifice ..."

Does it mean that Krishna has taken birth as Dada Lekhraj?

OK so the BK / PBK Krishna is nothing to do with the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita, and in the BK / PBK view, Krishna's words in the Bhagavad Gita are invented by the human author.

Yes, but the BKs/PBKs believe that the original source of inspiration are the Murlis narrated in the Confluence Age. But it is said in the Murlis that the truth in the Sanskrit Gita authored in the Copper Age by a human being contains very little truth, just like a pinch of salt in a large quantity of wheat flour used to prepare roties in India.

Does it mean that Krishna has taken birth as Dada Lekhraj?

It is not the cowherd Krishna turned ruler of Dwarka (as mentioned in Mahabharata and believed to have existed in the Dwapar yuga, i.e. the Copper Age by the Hindus) who has taken rebirth but the first Krishna of the Golden Age (a prince who becomes emperor Narayan) who has taken rebirth as Dada Lekhraj in the Kaliyuga/Iron Age.

But it is said in the Murlis that the truth in the Sanskrit Gita authored in the Copper Age by a human being contains very little truth, just like a pinch of salt in a large quantity of wheat flour used to prepare roties in India.

Emanating from this Divine Yagya is the huge conflagration in the form of this world war, hereinafter called the War of Mahabharat, as a result whereof and as corroborated by most Supreme Gita and Bhagwat ...

It in revealed from experience acquired through Divine Insight, corroborated by the All-Supreme Gita Scripture ...

Is the above (from 1943 book) talking about the Bhagavad Gita scripture or something else?

Anyway so # 1 soul Krishna was born as Dada Lekhraj but for the first forty something years of his life Dada Lekhraj did not realise he was Krishna, and he only remembered when he started having visions - is this correct?